Is this alignment question on or off-topic?

Question

A user asked this question: Is a character's OFFICIAL alignment their ACTED or INTENDED alignment? After much fuss over someone answering the question before it was tagged with the correct game, the question was put on hold as primarily opinion based. mxyzplk then declined to re-open the question on the grounds that questions about alignment are off-topic.

I argue that this question is on topic because it objectively answered within the Pathfinder core rules here:

Alignment is a curious creature; it summarizes the philosophy and morality of a person, and yet no two characters with the same alignment are exactly alike.

Is this question on topic?

Answer 1

The question is subjective for the same reason most alignment questions are subjective, as covered in Are questions about alignment on topic?

The thing is, the alignment rules (in all editions) are a contradictory mess. This requires people to overlay their own philosophy and value system to make any sense of it. But this is what makes questions about them hopelessly subjective.

For example, you say "obviously" the answer is intended, and you might quote

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment

(A stronger argument than the line you do quote, which isn't all that clear).

But of course if you read deeper into the rules, you find

When a character performs an action that is out of character for his listed alignment, the GM decides whether the action is enough to shift the character's alignment on the appropriate alignment track, and if so by how much...

In the end, this is like debating "is salvation through faith or works?" (Like, as in pretty much exactly like.) Pathfinder has a wide variety of examples in its rules, adventure paths, NPC collections, monster collections, etc. of alignments that seem more "heart" driven, more "action" driven (the redemption of the succubus in Wrath of the Righteous for example). There's no single right answer.

And in the end, we had that meta and have this rule not because of a legalistic argument that these questions are off topic - but because they have a history of degenerating into subjective messes. This question is well on its way there. 37 comments. +6/-4 voted answer. If we reopen it, it'll just turn into the usual giant mess, require lots of community and mod intervention, cause hurt feelings and general problems between users, and get closed again. We've seen it dozens of times and aren't interested in seeing it again.

Answer 2

This question is on topic because it's a rules question with a mechanical answer.

Two guidelines primarily apply to questions on alignment:

• The meta Are questions about alignment on topic?, which defines that some questions on alignment are on topic, and some are not
• The general rule that answers may be closed if they are inherently subjective

The accepted meta answer is that mechanical questions about game rules are valid, and as are social questions such as how to deal with alignment problems at the table.

Conversely, debates over what alignment you think Batman is are inherently subjective because it's always "primarily opinion based", and these are not allowed on the grounds of being inherently subjective, and ultimately being duplicates of the same question.

The question asks what alignment means: beliefs, or works? This is objectively answerable within the Pathfinder game rules, which define alignment.

The asker is not asking what alignment people think a character is. They're asking what a certain game rule means, and the answer to that is contained within Pathfinder's game rules.

Mod mxyzplk, who opposes re-opening the answer, makes a number of points, with which I politely disagree:

1. That alignment is inherently subjective. While that's generally true, I disagree in the case of this question because it's asking about a specific facet of the alignment rules, and can be answered objectively on those grounds.
2. That Pathfinder's rule are contradictory or unclear. Many rules in D&D and Pathfinder are contradictory or unclear, and the answer to such questions is often to cite the relevant rules and any official game FAQ entries, then to note that it may still require the GM to adjudicate. This has always been considered a valid answer when applied to other questions.
3. That the top answer is controversial because it has many downvotes. These downvotes were acquired because the user jumped the gun and answered the question before the asker clarified which game system they were speaking about.
4. That the question already collapsed to pointless debate in comments. While there were many comments, they were largely discussing whether or not the question was on topic, and whether it was valid for the user to assume which RPG system was being discussed.
5. That the question cannot be answered without resorting to subjectivity. I have on occasion here seen questions with a note that only objective rules-based answers will be accepted, and subjective answers will be deleted. If not for the unnecessarily strict enforcement of a taboo on alignment-based questions, this question could readily be answered under those conditions.

Answer 3

The question is certainly on-topic, which has nothing to do with being opinion-based or not. However, you are wrong that the rules indicate that Utilitarianism is an invalid RAW alignment coder for pathfinder. If Pathfinder did indicate an anticonsequential alignment resolution system, then the question would not be opinion based. However, since Pathfinder does not, in fact, indicate that (rather, it indicates that alignment refers to the 'philosophy and morality' of a person, which is 'internal' only if morality is internal, which it isn't in many ethical frameworks), the correct answer is 'this depends on what moral framework you've coded alignment onto in your game', but when that's the correct answer we historically also have a lot of VTCs as opinion-based.

Answer 4

This question is objective because the game as it stands cannot be played without knowing the answer

Spells within Pathfinder, such as Detect Evil and See Alignment cannot work, and Paladin, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Cleric classes break if the answer cannot be known. These spells and classes are extremely important to the game, and thus, rules for the system have been put in the Core Rulebook.

This question asks about how the system works, for which there is a definitive answer in the Core Rulebook. It asks whether Alignment is based on Intent or pure Acts, which is most certainly defined within the PF system, and the accepted answer demonstrates several sources straight from the Core Rules which demonstrate an objective answer to a question that the Pathfinder Developers anticipated.

Assuming otherwise would say that Paladins are entirely homebrew despite having official rules, because the system upon which their are based, which is definitely established in the core rules, is somehow "inherently subjective."

To say that the answer cannot be known, or is inherently subjective, means Organized Play cannot exist.

Assuming that any answer to this question is inherrently subjective means Organized Play can't exist, since the Alignment rules are "entirely subjective" and could never be agreed-upon widely. The objective fact that Pathfinder Society somehow has managed to exist globally for years despite this obviously critical apparent flaw in the rules only goes to show that the Core Rules have an answer that is objective according to Official DMs, Developers, and Judges around the world.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety

Therefore, it must be ruled that the question of Acts-based Alignment versus Intention-based Alignment has an objective answer which is present in the rules, and that this question therefore is objective because there is an objectively-correct, rules-based answer to it.

Finally, the Question has a Mechanical Answer

The accepted answer shows that there is, in-fact, a mechanical answer, and cites the Core Rules as proof. The answer is well-defined in the core rules, which means that there is an objective answer to the question, which, in-turn, means that the question is not inherently subjective.